Aberlour welcomes the opportunity to respond to the second consultation on the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2008. As an organisation that puts the interests of children at its heart and provides a wide range of services for looked after children, we are very keen to offer views relating to our specialist work with children in residential, foster and kinship care. If you have any further questions pertaining to our response please contact Natalia Duncan, Policy Officer, Aberlour, email natalia.duncan@aberlour.org.uk
Question 1:
Part I – General
The structure of the Regulations has improved. It is helpful to have separate sections on care at home, kinship care, foster care, and residential care arrangements. Aberlour is especially glad to see Kinship Care being separated out from Foster Care.
Regulation 2
The definitions of foster carer, parent, permanence order, kinship carer, registered fostering service are defined clearly and appropriately. However, the term ‘relative carer’ should be replaced by the term ‘kinship carer’, which is in more frequent use now. Also, it would be helpful to more clearly define what is meant by a ‘child or young person’ in terms of age, etc.
The Regulations cover the age group which should be referred to as children and young people rather than children. It would be more appropriate to call the care plan ‘child/young person’s plan’ rather than ‘child’s plan’.
Question 2:
Part II - Care Planning
There is a reference to explicit use of the GIRFEC model, which Aberlour supports. Many Local Authorities such as Highland and other organisations have developed work around GIRFEC, particularly the IAF, and therefore it makes more sense to be more inclusive of the knowledge, skills and lessons learned over a number of years in the regulations. It would be very useful to follow GIRFEC developments in the regulations.
Regulation 3
It would be useful to receive further clarification in the guidance regarding the lack of requirement for the medical examination of a child if they have been seen by a medical practitioner in the previous 3 months. It is important that each child is assessed individually and that an option is given to have a medical examination regardless of when the last one took place. In terms of who does the examination, consideration should be given as to whom he or she would feel most comfortable with. For example, if a young girl has been sexually abused by a male, it could be that she prefers a female medical examiner – perhaps this should be given as high a priority consideration as to whether this is undertaken by a GP or school nurse? We would agree that in some cases, the school nurse role or the new Health Visiting Role may be appropriate as referred to in the regulations.
Regulation 4
As regulation 4 refers directly to a child’s needs and not merely their case, it should be titled so. As there is a wide range of circumstances where child’s needs are assessed it might be helpful to prioritise in the regulations what information should be sought as a priority to make immediate informed decisions and what information can wait to be obtained until the first review.
Regulation 5
It would be better to define a care plan as a child/ young person’s plan. It would be useful to have more clarity and consistency about the use of terms such as child’s plan, care plan, child’s case. To avoid confusion any previous plans that the child had prior to becoming looked after should be reviewed and updated so that the child has one plan encapsulating all the care that needs to be provided to him or her including clearly delineated responsibilities for all the people involved in looking after the child. This also reflects multi-agency approach to child care planning.
Regulation 5 refers to a child’s age and maturity but should also refer to ability and capacity to understand and communicate. Assuming that this regulation also covers children and young people with disabilities, there is no reference here as to how their views will be sought. This could be clarified in the guidance. The duty to consult with children and produce a care plan are good positive changes in the revised regulations.
Schedule 1 and 2 should be consistent with the GIRFEC model of assessment of child’s needs, containing all the key information which would allow carers to provide the best care for the child. It should also be updated on a regular basis during reviews, giving the most up to date picture of child’s needs and how those will be met.
Regulation 6, 7 and 8 do not fit in well with the Care Planning Section as they cover issues which may happen much later in the care process. Perhaps they should be moved to another section, later in the regulations.
Regulation 7
Question 2(f) enquires about successful transition of young people in care to independent living. This is a particular area of need for many of the young people Aberlour works with and one we are constantly working to address. For example, there is a lack of guidance in relation to young people with disabilities who, on leaving children and families services, can end up living in old peoples care homes. Equally, there is little or no guidance in relation to assessment of the needs of young people before making decisions about where they should live after they have left residential care. Some young people require much more ongoing support through this transition period. This should be reflected in the regulations and more details of good practice provided in guidance.
Question 3:
Part III - Looked after children cared for by parents
Regulation 10 should refer to serious issues which occur at school; exclusions etc. In some cases, it is useful to notify the local authority if it is known that the child/young person has made any contact with parents outwith the contact arrangements.
Question 4:
Part IV- Kinship Care
This section has to be extended. It should include more detail about the assessment and approval of kinship carers. The whole process is fully described in the Interim guidance on Assessment and Approval of kinship carers developed by the GIRFEC in Kinship and Foster Care Reference Group. The process of assessment and approval of kinship carers can be outlined in the regulation within Part IV while more details could be provided in the guidance. The process of assessment of kinship carers is different from that of the foster carers therefore it has to be described clearly in the section about kinship care, e.g. the process of assessment and approval, timescale, etc. Schedule 3 could also include extra details about assessment and approval processes of kinship carers.
From the Interim guidance on Assessment and Approval of kinship carers:
‘Although any assessment should be proportionate to a child’s needs, the process should focus on:
• Seeing children directly in order to gather their views (according to their age and understanding)
• Assessing the child’s needs, using the My World Triangle (GIRFEC model) to identify strengths and pressures and analysing these using a resilience approach (see http://www.forhighlandschildren.org/htm/girfec/girfec-agencydocs.php )
• Gathering information from the carers about the strengths and pressures in their life that can effect care
• Ensuring carers have full information on practical matters of finance, legal issues and benefits
• Exploring with them the major changes that caring for the child will bring to their own family relationships
• Identifying work to be done with the child’s parents and, if necessary, drawing up a plan of support for carers to help in managing agreed contact patterns that support children’s well-being
• Looking with the carers at how they will provide a protective environment for children and what help they will need to do this. This will include honesty about any issues of safety, including a bottom line for action if the placement is not safe
• Considering the impact on their own children if they are still in the family home (includes talking to carers’ own children, grandchildren and the extended family)
• Developing the child’s plan - involving birth parents, family and professionals
• Assessing in partnership with the carers what they can do to meet the needs of the child which have been identified in the child’s plan
• Agreeing what support and services the child and carer need to make kinship care positive for the child.’
Question 5:
Part V – Foster panels
Regulation 18 /or guidance/ could specify what expertise should be present among the panel members, for example, admin support, legal expert, medical adviser, foster carer, child care expert etc. There could be a key group plus additional experts, and a quorum of 3 should be set among the key members of the group excluding experts specialising in particular areas.
It is helpful to have an indication in the regulations about the size of the foster panel – minimum 6. The members of the foster panel have to go through special training. More clarity would be useful as to which children are to be referred to the Fostering Panel. The option of having a mixed gender panel as in Children’s hearings can be offered in the guidance.
Question 6:
Part VI – Fostering
Sons and daughters of foster carers have important roles to play in the process. Future success of placement could depend on how well children of foster carers accept and adapt to having other children in their family. This should be well assessed prior to the placement. Children of foster carers should be involved in assessment, training and support. This should be reflected in the regulations and in the Schedule 4.
There is also confusion around whether or not a child who is in foster care is able to go and stay with a friend (on a sleepover) only if some assessment has been undertaken with the parents. It would arguably be worthwhile to make reference to this in the guidance for the purpose of clarity.
Regulation 32
Case records for foster carers should be kept for 20-25 years in case of future allegations.
Question 7:
Regulation 33
Part VII should be called ‘Foster and Kinship care allowances’ as it talks about both.
This is currently a post code lottery and this is perhaps reflected in the lightness of Regulation 33. The current system only makes provision for allowances to be paid to kinship carers whilst the child is looked after, while there is a high number of voluntary kinship care placements where allowances are not paid. This regulation needs to be more specific about both cases. Often the child/young person will not continue to be looked after by the Local Authority if the kinship care placement works out well; consequently payments stop which is different for foster care placements.
Question 8:
Part VIII - Looked after children in residential establishments
There is very limited information about looked after children being placed in residential establishments. This section has to be expanded. Part VIII should start with what information has to be supplied about the child – Schedule 1 and 2 can be used here. Children in residential care should have their child/young person’s plans as well as children in other types of care, which is to be reviewed and care adjusted appropriately. A separate Schedule on responsibilities and roles of a residential establishment and a local authority would be very helpful.
Transition of children in residential care to independent living represents a burning issue. It would be helpful to see more guidance and good practice embedded into regulations. Local authorities could have responsibility for planning the transition and making sure young people are not left on their own by providing guidance, support, advice, and information as required. (Also see comments in the regulation 7)
Question 9:
Part IX - Emergency placement
The timescale of 3 working days is more appropriate than 72 hours – it affords more opportunity to respond to an emergency in a more efficient and appropriate way, allowing reasonable time to collect required information. On the other hand, if the agency has 72 full hours to deal with the situation it might be better as in some circumstances, quick decisions may have to be made about the situation which in some cases could be very critical. More information is required about a situation where a carer in an emergency placement is not approved - particularly regarding timescales and procedures. Information collected about the child specified in Schedules 1 and 2 should be made available to the carer.
Regulation 38 is not clear about what happens if the carer with whom the child was placed is not ultimately approved as a carer but is still an appropriate placement for the child. Clarification as to how long the child will be able to stay with the carer, what procedures will need to be undertaken is required.
Question 10:
Part X - Review of the child’s plan
It would be useful to consider a permanency plan at all review meetings. The approach to the review timescale is better earlier than later. It is especially important that the child is seen in the first week of a placement to make sure that the placement is appropriate and going well.
Regulation 41
The regulations propose to include reference to local authorities being required to adhere to the Code of Practice but clarification is needed as to how this effects other organisations, like Aberlour, who have residential homes. Currently no such reference is made in the regulations.
Permanence Orders
This consultation is also seeking views on permanence orders. Looked After Children Regulations need to address the key aspects of the Permanence Orders. It has to emphasize the role of permanence orders in meeting children’s needs as well as bringing more stability into the lives of children and carers. Part X of the Regulations can outline the key issues of the permanence decision making.
Decisions on permanency have to be made as early as possible in children’s lives. Sometimes decisions are delayed because parents are given many chances to make circumstances acceptable for the child, it is appropriate that efforts are made to stabilize the home environment with birth parents and Aberlour delivers services to this end. However we recognize the reality that in some situations parents may be unable to offer an acceptable standard of care for their child, for example, when parents with drug or alcohol dependency, and are unable to control their addiction to the point where they fail to provide a child with a safe and caring environment regardless of the interventions or assistance and support that they have been offered. As the result of such delayed decisions, some children have to wait for years, uncertain of their circumstances. Therefore, regulations could improve the situation by suggesting a reasonable timescale, exploring all options at early stage, making timely decisions, involving the legal team at early stage as well as keeping thorough records of the whole process of decision making.
General points and comments
Numbering of the sections is a bit confusing therefore it would be useful to have it checked and corrected, e.g. Reg 3, 4, 16, 27 etc.
Some regulations should be clarified and explained in the guidance to avoid the situation of being too prescriptive and therefore limiting options.
Introducing the possibility for the same sex couples to become carers opens some opportunities and challenges. Guidance should provide clarity about the best way to go about this.
The list of people consulted about the regulations:
Jackie Hothersall – Regional Director, Aberlour
Jane Fargie – Fostering Coordinator, Sycamore residential services, Aberlour
Anne Black – Chair, Aberlour
Practitioners of Aberlour services
The response is written by Natalia Duncan, Policy Officer, email natalia.duncan@aberlour.org.uk